This is a Lawful Notice and Response to BOCC Meeting dated ...€¦ · Archuleta County Attorney, Todd Starr, P.O. Box 1507 Pagosa Springs, CO 81147 This is a Lawful Notice and Response

Archuleta County, ColoradoBoard of County Commissioners, (BOCC)Michael Whiting,Clifford Lucero,Steve Wadley,Archuleta County Attorney, Todd Starr, P.O. Box 1507Pagosa Springs, CO 81147

This is a Lawful Notice and Response to BOCC Meeting dated 1-23-14

March 14, 2014,

Gentlemen,

First, thank you for your time on 1-23-14 to begin this process concerning theLiberty Zone Ballot Initiatives, although, as pointed out, the “work session”promised to us most certainly was not a true work session, and seemed to be simplyanother “ruled” BOCC meeting, since we only had the customary BOCC 3 minutesfor the speakers to present the actual evidence the People stand on. Most of thisevidence could not be presented in only three minutes, and this tactic seemed to bean attempt to subvert the People’s rights further, so we present it here and now, forthe legal record.

We do not consider this matter closed... not even close, since it involves every non-home ruled county in Colorado, and some are watching, and you can be sure all willbe hearing about this. The BOCC has been noticed repeatedly on the Colorado lawsand Constitution, to no avail, thus, we NOTICE you herein one last time.

There still seems to be great confusion with the BOCC, not to mention some in themeeting audience and general population, regarding what the real issues are here. First and foremost, it is an issue of law and Constitutional applications, notopinions, beliefs or any other subjective topic, and at this point, it isn’t even aboutthe 11 initiatives themselves.

The whole reason these initiatives have been submitted is due to the variousgovernment(S) moving further and further into lawlessness and away from theConstitution and its chains, and the associated stifling of the rights of the People,such as the right to change the government they created, among many otherinfringements of their rights and liberties. The hierarchy system that is propagated is that “Federal Government is topauthority, with State government under, and subservient to, Federal Government,

Liberty Zone/The People lawfully respond to BOCC position on initiatives Page 1 of 15

then the County/local governments being next in authority, with the mere mortalPeople subservient to all the above. This is backwards and unconstitutional, andwarring against the Constitutions themselves, and the natural, God-given rights ofthe People who created these governments.

“No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against theConstitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” Cooper v.Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958). See also the U.S. Supreme Courtholding in Chens v Virginia 19 U.S.264, 404, 5 L.Ed. 257, 6 Wheat. 264(1821).

Some in the audience that day seemed to suggest that it is permissible to violate theConstitution, and to support unconstitutional laws and politicians, and alsopresume that the Federal government is the ultimate authority in these UnitedStates. Sheriff Mack’s United States Supreme Court ruling in Printz v. UnitedStates, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) showed that to be a frivolous conclusion, as do ourConstitutions. There is only one word for that type of unconstitutional purpose andaction, and that is, “treason...” the deliberate subversion of Constitutional law andPeople’s rights, and the perversion of original intent of the laws the foundinggeneration established, despite continued notice of same.

What was read at the 1-23-14 BOCC meeting as Todd Starr’s “legal advice” was, asstated, mostly hearsay, with no actual supportive “evidence in fact” placed in therecord to refute already provided evidence, repeated herein. In any court in theRepublic, the County would have lost on that alone. A further point to consider isthe fact that when the Colorado Revised Statutes and Constitution were originallyadopted, there were no “County” legislative powers, and therefore, there was no“reservation” of the already existing right of initiatives to the People to petition the“County” legislative powers that have since been established.

Because the existing rights WERE “reserved” (see discussion of “reserved” below),for towns, cities and municipalities, it is a natural conclusion that any furthergovernment created by the People, especially a larger one, would, of course, also besubject to the already “reserved” power of initiative and petition, discussed herein,without being “legislated.”

What DOES the Colorado Constitution and law actually say?

1. The presumption being made by the BOCC and County attorney Todd Starr isthat people residing in cities, towns and municipalities have the right to petitiontheir “local” governments, but not to petition the County governments. Justpausing to think about that for a brief moment should bring realization that this


means that the population of Archuleta County outside those select areas are beingdenied their right to petition THEIR “local” government (the Board of CountyCommissioners... the ONLY one they have - See discussion below on this) under the1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting... the right of the people... to petitionthe Government for a redress of grievances."

Congress has no right to make such laws to deprive the People of this right topetition, which, in law, goes far beyond just redressing grievances. Does the Stategovernment or County government have a right to trump this right or prevent thisright? No, and no evidence exists to suggest this is the case, and ample evidenceexists, shown herein, to prove the People’s right to the initiative process at theCounty level does, in fact and law, exist.

In further research, it now also seems clear that not only people outside localgovernment areas are being deprived of the right to petition the Countygovernments, but it appears that local city, town and municipality residents arebeing told that they cannot petition their “County” governments, either, but ONLYtheir “local” governments. We disagree with this completely, per the following;

2. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, thatthey are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, thatamong these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to securethese rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their justpowers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form ofGovernment becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Peopleto alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying itsfoundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as tothem shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness....when along train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Objectevinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right,it is their duty, to throw off such Government...” Declaration ofIndependence (Emphasis added throughout).

The above is clear and concise, and doesn’t leave any ambiguity as to the power thePeople have under the Constitution. For local people to have the power ofinitiatives for their smaller government bodies, and yet the total People aredeprived of any right of initiative over the larger Countywide government, isuntenable. This leaves a significant portion of the People outside local areaswithout a voice in the only government they have, and also prevents local areapeople from the same voice in County government.


3. Colo. Const. Art. II, Section 1, Vestment of political powers;

“All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government,of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and isinstituted solely for the good of the whole.”

Any governments that claims this is not true is not a government “of right” and is adefacto governing body usurping powers not granted to it, and has become atyrannical, unlawful entity.

Art. II, SEC. 2. That the people of this State have the sole and exclusiveright of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent State;and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government wheneverthey may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided suchchange be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

ALL GOVERNMENTAL DEPARTMENTS MUST ANSWER TO THE PEOPLE. It is well thatall departments give pause, that they may not offend. All must answer to the people, in and fromwhom, as specifically set forth in this section, all political power is invested and derived. Hudson

v. Annear, 101 Colo. 551, 75 P.2d 587 (1938).

In Medina v. People, 154 Colo. 4, 387 P.2d 733 (1963), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 848, 85 S. Ct. 88,

13 L. Ed. 2d 52 (1964), the Colorado supreme court held that the bill of rights is self-executing;the rights therein recognized or established by the constitution do not depend upon legislativeaction in order to become operative.

This means ALL people have the right to petition their government and to makealterations in said government at will, which the county certainly is part of. Nogovernment level can be excluded from the People’s right to petition or to createinitiatives, and certainly not at the larger County legislative level.

4.CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

ARTICLE V LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Colo. Const. Art. V, Section 25 (2013)

Section 25. SPECIAL LEGISLATION PROHIBITED

The general assembly shall not pass local or special laws in any of thefollowing enumerated cases... regulating county or township affairs...


Any laws established by the general assembly cannot interfere with County affairs,but only enhance them. This means the People of the Counties have the right to avoice in county affairs which the State cannot interfere with through anyregulations.

5.TITLE 1. ELECTIONS

INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM ARTICLE 40. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM

C.R.S. 1-40-101 (2013)1-40-101. Legislative declaration

(1) The general assembly declares that it is not the intention of this article tolimit or abridge in any manner the powers reserved to the people in theinitiative and referendum, but rather to properly safeguard, protect, andpreserve inviolate for them these modern instrumentalities of democraticgovernment.

Are we to presume this intent is only limited to this article, and is not to alsoencompass all other articles or statutes with the same intent to not “limit orabridge” the same “ initiative and referendum” powers “reserved” to the People? The Archuleta County BOCC and Todd Starr are certainly claiming that our rightto initiatives does not include the County government.

6. TITLE 30. GOVERNMENT - COUNTY

COUNTY POWERS AND FUNCTIONS ARTICLE 11. COUNTY POWERS AND FUNCTIONS

PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

C.R.S. 30-11-103.5. County petitions and referred measures

The procedures for placing an issue or question on the ballot by a petition ofthe electors of a county that is pursuant to statute or the state constitutionor that a board of county commissioners may refer to a vote of the electorspursuant to statute or the state constitution shall, to the extent no suchprocedures are prescribed by statute, charter, or the state constitution,follow as nearly as practicable the procedures for municipal initiatives andreferred measures under part 1 of article 11 of title 31, C.R.S. The countyclerk and recorder shall resolve any questions about the applicability of theprocedures in part 1 of article 11 of title 31, C.R.S."


30-11-103.5 directly addresses “County” initiatives and measures, and clearly has astatutory construction for Counties to follow regarding said petitions. This wasnever directly addressed in Dellinger,1 (cited by County attorney Todd Starr), andleaves a void of a constitutional/law question which cannot be ignored.

How is 30-11-103.5; negated by the BOCC’s or the Dellinger, infra, court’s legalposition? The Dellinger, infra, court cannot legislate, or eliminate, existingstatutory law. This statute regarding the County must have SOME County purposeand meaning for the People as intended by the General Assembly. This clearlystates that the “procedures” (something denied as existing by County attorney ToddStarr) for “County” Petitions, can include “an issue,” and “questions,” (not just aHome Rule petition) and be placed there by the “electors of a County,” (or the BOCCmay refer it to the vote, (simplifying the whole process, and supporting the People’sright to Petition), AND, are based, “as nearly as practicable,” when no suchprocedures are prescribed by statute,” on Title 31-11-104 “procedures,” as follows;C.R.S. 31-11-104

(1) Any proposed ordinance may be submitted to the legislative body of anymunicipality2 by filing written notice of the proposed ordinance with theclerk (Note: June Madrid approved these on May 30th, 2013) and, within onehundred eighty days after approval of the petition pursuant to section 31-11-106 (1), by filing a petition signed by at least five percent of the registeredelectors of the city or town on the date of such notice. (Note: We turned theinitiatives in on the 180th day (11-26-2013) to allow us to get as manysignatures as possible.)

Such procedures were followed to the letter in bringing in the petitions to theCounty Clerk. C.R.S. 30-11-103.5 also clearly designates the County Clerk andRecorder as the one to determine issues related to 31-11-104, not the Countyattorney or BOCC. This also seems to have been subverted.

7. Authorities which further back up our position of the power of the WHOLEPeople to petition and create initiatives follows. (Please review annotations underColo. Const. Art. V, Section 1 (2013) on

1 Daniel Dellinger v. Board of County Commissioners for the County of Teller, ColoradoCourt of Appeals, Division V. September 14, 2000.

2 Municipality. “A legally incorporated or duly authorized association of inhabitants oflimited area for local governmental or other public purposes. Political subdivision or public agencyor instrumentality of a State. Bankruptcy Act, § 1 0 1 (29).” Blacks Law Dictionary. (Counties fallinto this “political subdivision” category as well and cannot be excluded from the People).


http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/ website for further supportive cases,(Dellinger, Supra, notwithstanding), including, but not limited to, the following;

“All power has been reserved by people through initiative and referendum.” In re Legislative Reapportionment, 150 Colo. 380, 374 P.2d 66 (1962).

“This section, as well as the statutes which implement it, must be liberallyconstrued so as not to unduly limit or curtail the exercise of the initiativeand referendum rights constitutionally reserved to the people.” Colo.Project-Common Cause v. Anderson, 178 Colo. 1, 495 P.2d 220 (1972);Billings v. Buchanan, 192 Colo. 32, 555 P.2d 176 (1976).

“The interpretative approach to the power of referendum gives broad effect tothe reservation in the people and refrains from implying or incorporatingrestrictions not specified in the constitution, (U.S. 1st. Amendment andColorado Constitution-LZ), or a charter for a reservation to the people shouldnot be narrowly construed.” City of Fort Collins v. Dooney, 178 Colo. 25, 496P.2d 316 (1972).

“The initiative and referendum provision is in all respects self-executing. It isnot a mere framework, but contains the necessary detailed provisions forcarrying into immediate effect the enjoyment of the rights thereinestablished without legislative action.” Yenter v. Baker, 126 Colo. 232, 248P.2d 311 (1952).

“Legislative action” is NOT required to define or uphold a right already existing with thePeople.

“The initiative power reserved by the people is to be liberally construed toallow the greatest possible exercise of this valuable right.” City of Glendalev. Buchanan, 195 Colo. 267, 578 P.2d 221 (1978); Committee For BetterHealth Care v. Meyer, 830 P.2d 884 (Colo. 1992).

It is clear that the bulk of the courts have upheld the People’s right to petition, andhave not limited this right, or if alleged to have done so, (Dellinger, Supra), havedone so unconstitutionally and in violation of the rights of the People. This naturalright applies to ALL the People, and cannot be denied to local groups of the Peoplefrom ANY government entity effecting them personally.

However, an obvious conflict has been created within the Dellinger, Supra, court’srulings...


“The list of affected governmental units does not include counties, and thiscourt has not recognized any constitutional initiative powers reserved to thepeople over countywide legislation. Cf. People ex rel. Cheyenne Erosion Dist.v. Parker, 118 Colo. 13, 18-19, 192 P.2d 417, 420 (1948) (narrowly construingthe scope of the initiative powers reserved by article V, section 1).”

First, the Dellinger court states that it “has not recognized any constitutionalinitiative powers “reserved” (See #9 below) to the people. Because the court has not“recognized” (verbally acknowledged said right, or observed said legislated“reservation” of this existing right), or the legislature has not legislated this (orevery) right the People already have, does not diminish or negate those inherentrights belonging to the People.

The “Constitutional initiative powers” are already reserved in the ColoradoConstitution and the U.S. Constitution as stated above... the “right to alter orabolish,” and as stated in Colo. Project-Common Cause v. Anderson, 178 Colo. 1,495 P.2d 220 (1972).

Second, the right to initiative powers is to be “liberally construed,’ as City ofGlendale, Supra, counters, but with which Dellinger, Supra, clearly conflicts.

In McKee v. City of Louisville, the court stated:

“By the express provisions of the Colorado Constitution the people havereserved for themselves the right to legislate. . . . Like the right to vote, thepower of initiative is a fundamental right at the very core of our republicanform of government. . . . This court has always liberally construed thisfundamental right, and concomitantly, we have viewed with the closestscrutiny any governmental action that has the effect of curtailing its freeexercise.” McKee v. City of Louisville, 200 Colo. 525, 616 P.2d 972, 969 (1980).

The BOCC’s position appears to be in direct conflict with these rulings, as Cheyenne Erosion Dist., Supra, is, (cited in Dellinger) creating a constitutionalquestion of inherent rights to the People being voided all across Colorado.

8.CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

ARTICLE V, Sec. 1 General assembly - initiative and referendum.

(2) “The first power hereby reserved by the people is the initiative...”

(3) “The second power hereby reserved is the referendum...”


These statute sections state that the Legislature is merely “reserving” (See #9below) powers to the people, NOT “granting” such powers. This means thelegislature is not “creating” any initiative or referendum power and “granting” it asprivilege to the people, but it is “reserving,” in statute form, rights which alreadybelonged to the people...

"...it is not a grant to the people but a reservation by them for themselves."McKee, Supra.

We hold that it is unconstitutional if it is being construed to exclude elector’s rightto petition the “County” regarding the legislative authority it possesses, and whichaffects the People directly. If so, it is clearly in conflict with not only the U.S.Constitution, but sited authorities herein.

9. In Dellinger, Supra, the Court stated...

“ The primary issue on appeal is whether the right of initiative set forth inColo. Const. art. V, § 1, is applicable to, and exercisable by, the electors ofunin-corporated, non-home-rule counties in Colorado. We agree with the trialcourt that it is not and, therefore, affirm.”

This is a clear contradiction to above statutes and constitutional law. Furtherdiscussion on the Dellinger, Supra, Court’s ruling is elsewhere herein, but there isconflict created by # 9 of Art. V...

(9) The initiative and referendum powers reserved to the people by thissection are hereby further reserved to the registered electors of every city,town, and municipality as to all local, special, and municipal legislation ofevery character in or for their respective municipalities.”

To reiterate, the “reservation” of the power of initiatives applies to “city, town, andmunicipality” as stated in this statute, but it is being presumed to preclude eventhese electors, although having the “reservation” of power of initiatives” in their“local” (city, town or municipality) affairs, from having a voice in “County”government, leaving all County governments (not under Home Rule) outside thereach of electors across the counties, and throughout the State of Colorado, from theright of initiative at the County government level.

Dellinger, Supra, goes on to state...

“where the language of the Constitution is plain and its meaning clear, thelanguage must be enforced as written.”


This clear language of the Constitution is being ignored by the Dellinger, Supra,court, and ANY language of a statute is valid ONLY when such language does NOTviolate rights already reserved to the people apart from statutes, or already instatutes. At the time of the original enactment of Art. V, as already referenced,Counties did not have legislative authority or power, and therefore initiative powerswere not stated as “reserved” in the Article, (there was no cause to do so) but theoriginal intent as written for “towns, cities and municipalities” clearly showed thatthe power of initiative was “reserved” to the People in these areas (there were noother legislative areas relevant) because of legislative activities, in which the Peoplehad fundamental right to directly confront.

The U.S. Constitution is between the States and the U.S. government, and limits“FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POWER” over the People, as the ColoradoConstitution limits State’s power over the People. Neither “limit” the People’snatural, God-given rights... same as if to a king. (Please see Conclusion).

All rights are already held by the People apart from the U.S. Constitution andColorado State Constitution, and under the 10th Amendment’s(3) limit of power tothe U.S. government. All rights not specific to said U.S. Government (ONLY 18enumerated powers-Article 1, section 8) are “reserved” (not granted) to the States,or the People. The State legislature cannot reduce already possessed, fundamentalrights of the whole People, as is being suggested where the County electors cannotcreate initiatives for their County government, for change where desired.

All powers belonging to the People do NOT have to be legislated into statute formby the State to exist, and certainly ARE not, and, thus, can be exercised by thePeople at will without permission from servant government.

10. To answer the question as to whether the People have to go to the legislatureFIRST (County Commissioners in this case), can be answered here:

a. “The initiative provisions are expressly declared to be self-executing, and,as such, only legislation which will further the purpose of the constitutionalprovision or facilitate its operation, is permitted.” Colo. Project-CommonCause, Supra. b. “The phrase ‘that it shall be in all respects self-executing’ merely meansthat the power of initiative and referendum rests with the people whetheror not the general assembly implements the power. It does not prevent thegeneral assembly from enacting legislation which will strengthen that

3 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, norprohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Emp. Added


power.” In re Interrogatories Propounded by Senate Concerning House Bill1078, 189 Colo. 1, 536 P.2d 308 (1975).

It is contended herein that the Constitution and statutes support the right of thePeople to petition and create initiatives of ANY governing body that the Peoplecreate and reside therein. There is no evidence in fact in the record that the BOCCmust first be presented the initiative petitions “prior to” gathering signatures, for“approval,” and cannot attempt to reject said petitions prior to adoption, when eventhe court cannot do so;

In McKee, Supra, held at 973, the court recognized that only after a measure isadopted...

"when actual litigants whose rights are affected are before it, may the courtdetermine the validity of the legislation.”

There are NO constitutional rights of the People at risk through the initiative“process.”

The McKee, Supra, court also held at 439:

“...Nor may the courts interfere with the exercise of this right [to initiatelegislation] by declaring unconstitutional or invalid a proposed measurebefore the process has run its course and the measure is actually adopted.”

Certainly the County attorney and BOCC cannot “interfere with the exercise of thisright,” and to presume to do so suggests a willful desire to subvert the right and willof the People and the Federal and State Constitutions, as well as Colorado Statutes.

11. Lastly, we are trying to show extreme good faith, and providing the Countywith ample opportunity to respond to the laws. It is not our desire to have to bringparties to Federal Court, or higher, or create expenses for the County, but we will ifnecessary, because this is a fundamental constitutional question of rights of thePeople to govern themselves at issue, and this affects most every County inColorado. Other constitutional Counties are watching our actions and you can becertain that there will likely be support, in any suit that has to come, from one ormore counties in Colorado as well.

Any court action can be eliminated if the BOCC simply defends the People’s rightsand not big government. Over 600 signatures on these initiatives were collectedrepresenting 600+ People who chose to be involved in their freedoms and rights inthe time allotted. There would be thousands more had time allowed, so this is NOTsome fringe minority involved here, and there will be a countywide outpouring of


financial support for this cause, if necessary. This document and argument will bepart of the argument in any court proceeding

Conclusion:We believe a clear case can be made that it has never been the intent of theColorado Legislature, or the Courts, to deprive the People of their right to petitiontheir county governments, regardless of their location within a County. If the rightto Petition is limited to within smaller local (town, city, municipal) governments,then this also means ALL people of the Counties, including all those within localareas, are being deprived of the right to petition their much larger Countylegislature/governments. This makes no sense.

If the Colorado legislature’s intent WAS to limit such petition right, it is clearlyunconstitutional and must be declared to be so, Dellinger, Supra, notwithstanding;

When an act of the legislature is repugnant or contrary to the constitution, itis, ipso facto, void. 2 Pet. R. 522; 12 Wheat. 270; 3 Dall. 286; 4 Dall. 18.

"Insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental (Constitutional-LZ) lawof the land, it is superseded thereby." 16 Am Jur 2d 177, Late Am Jur 2d.256.

"The courts have the power, and it is their duty, when an act isunconstitutional, to declare it to be so; 9 Pet. 85. Vide 6 Cranch, 128; 1 Binn.419; 5; Binn. 355; 2 Penns 184; 3 S. & R. 169; 7 Pick. 466; 13 Pick. 60; 2Yeates, 493; 1 Virg. Cas. 20; 1 Blackf. 206 6 Rand. 245 1 Murph. 58; Harper,385 1 Breese, 209 Pr. Dee. 64, 89; 1 Rep.

If the BOCC has any authority to be legislating ANY laws (independent of theState, which they do), for all of Archuleta County, then this presumes the right ofthe People, who are the creators of government, and who are the lawful sovereignswhich governments, (and employed servants), exist to serve, to petition said Countygovernments, and create initiatives, and to have a lawful and Constitutional voicein said governments, as sovereigns:

"The People of a State are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged tothe King by his prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9, 20 (1829). (Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) ( New York ) "D." = DecennialDigest Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const.Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec.


1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7. NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. =Wendell (N.Y.))

"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they aretruly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns withoutsubjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America areequal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." ChisholmV. Georgia (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp 471-472.

"The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes,restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Actsof limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been cededall the rights of the King, the former sovereign,.....It is a maxim of thecommon law, that when an act is made for the common good and to preventinjury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute isgeneral and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (orthe people) he shall not be bound." People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345,348 (1825).

"It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powersgranted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions,the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within theirrespective states." Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997.

"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author andsource of law; ... while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies ofgovernment, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and forwhom all government exists and acts." Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, atpg. 370;

The People are sovereigns and NOT citizen/subjects of government, Federal, Stateor Local. By what authority can the County governments act to implement lawsand rules that will affect the whole People in the County, if the People, who createdsaid governments, have no right to alter these governments at the Countylegislative level?

Some may feel that the use of the word “treason” is too hard, or is “rhetoric” andempty words, but constitutional rights are at risk across these United States in amyriad of ways, and People across the land are rising up to restrain out-of-controlgovernments at every level. People who are violating their oath of office, the U.S.Constitution, the Colorado Constitution and Colorado Statutes are certainly“warring” against the Constitution and the People themselves. In another time inhistory, such people were imprisoned or hung, it is THAT serious to liberty, freedomand security.

Gentlemen, we have the opportunity to make Archuleta County the freest County inthese United States by simply getting back to Common Law, and the Constitutions.


Documents

This is a Lawful Notice and Response to BOCC Meeting dated ...€¦ · Archuleta County Attorney, Todd Starr, P.O. Box 1507 Pagosa Springs, CO 81147 This is a Lawful Notice and Response